Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Lucy Letby denied leave to appeal

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 24/05/2024 13:40

Just heard on the news Lucy Letby the convicted serial killer has been denied leave to appeal. Good decision I think. She should stay behind bars for the rest of her life.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
Notjoinedup · 24/05/2024 21:05

The link up thread to the statistical analysis is fascinating, if heavy going.

I think she is innocent. It’s Lucia de Berk all over again.

And God love Sally Clarke, her case is unbearable.

(For those that missed it she had 2 cot deaths. Professor Sir Roy Meadows said “once is tragic and twice is murder” and she was convicted, on the basis of what is actually “Prosecutor’s Fallacy.” The fact that a random event (cot death) has happened doesn’t make a second unrelated random event more or less likely. Because they are random events. And you can’t have related random events.)

shockeditellyou · 24/05/2024 21:08

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 18:30

There’s no need to read the article.

She’s guilty.

She was found guilty in a court of law, not just of one murder, but several, and several attempted murders,

And the fact that not every case shows that clearly the jury did look at all the evidence, and found in each individual case.

But hey, continue to defend a sick twisted murderer on a public website.

Are you prepared to stand by your defence of her to any one of her victims’ parents who might happen on to this thread? Because this is a parenting site, and anyone could be reading it, including the parents of the babies she murdered.

Many, many sub postmasters and mistresses were found guilty in a court of law. And look where we are now….

Absolutely nothing is infallible, and we owe it to everyone to reconsider if serious doubts are there.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a crap NHS unit wanted a scapegoat. I would imagine that one could make the same kind of statistical analysis suggesting other staff have been present at all of the recent neonatal deaths in several maternity units over the past few years.

TheFunHasGone · 24/05/2024 21:15

TiffanyBucksFizzRainbowBright · 24/05/2024 21:02

I was absolutely convinced she was guilty, didn't give it a second thought. Then I saw this thread and read the NY article in full and it's opened my eyes completely. Wow. I don't think justice has been done. It's a heartbreaking case and no-one wants the families to be put through any more heartache. BUT I know if I'd lost my child in these circumstances I want a fair and proper trial, to ultimately know as closely to the truth as possible. It seems so much has been left out here and so much has been left unaccounted or allowed to be said such as the defence witnesses. A fair trial should be a fair trial and it seems she's not had that...over the last few years if there is one thing I've learnt from the post office scandal and partygate is that the UK institutions will do anything to cover their own backs...interesting that so many maternity departments are under scrutiny. LL may be guilty we don't know...but evidence should have been presented and assessed in full...heartbreaking for all involved and telling when parents and colleagues themselves were in disbelief and a member of the jury drops out...

The jury was let go for personally reasons that happens often, why on earth do you think that's something to be concerned about?

And plenty of her colleagues were not in disbelief as they had put forward their concerns and were made to apologise to her

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:15

CerealPonderer · 24/05/2024 16:14

I was convinced she was guilty until I read the piece in the New Yorker.

It was fascinating (and disturbing) reading that really shed a different light on things.

So much of the actual timeline of events was omitted from the trial and what the Jury appeared to end up with were the slices of timeline that supported the prosecutions hypothesis. Plus totally misconstrued facts like the death rate dropping after she was suspended, which actually wasn't relevant at all.

If anyone can find the archived copy to post it's really worth a read.

I think there's been an awful miscarriage of justice.

The trial lasted ten months. The police and prosecution did an incredibly painstaking examination of the timeline on virtually a minute-by-minute basis, correlating evidence from things like door swipes, telephones, when information was input on the IT system, etc etc. Copies of those records were all available to the defence and jury.

Do we seriously believe that there was loads of evidence that would have exonerated Letby that was all kept from the jury, and that her highly competent defence didn't notice this either during the trial or after it so they could use it for the appeal?

I don't think anyone contests that the death rate dropped after she left because that unit stopped taking such vulnerable babies, although my understanding is that it dropped after she left and before that point in any event. What the evidence showed was that deaths happened during the day time when she was on day shifts, changed to night times when she was on night shifts, and stopped when she was on holiday. Hell of a coincidence if she was innocent.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:20

bibop · 24/05/2024 16:14

You can't 100% know she's guilty. It's very likely she is based on the verdict but there's been miscarriages of justice before.

I'm not basing my opinion on the New Yorker article, FWIW I followed this trial closely throughout.

No-one can 100% know whether a criminal is guilty unless they were there and saw the crime being committed. Unsurprisingly, criminals tend to commit their crimes out of the public eye and take quite a lot of trouble to cover their tracks. If we are going to require 100% proof of guilt, we might as well all become criminals, because they will be untouchable.

Mirabai · 24/05/2024 21:20

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:15

The trial lasted ten months. The police and prosecution did an incredibly painstaking examination of the timeline on virtually a minute-by-minute basis, correlating evidence from things like door swipes, telephones, when information was input on the IT system, etc etc. Copies of those records were all available to the defence and jury.

Do we seriously believe that there was loads of evidence that would have exonerated Letby that was all kept from the jury, and that her highly competent defence didn't notice this either during the trial or after it so they could use it for the appeal?

I don't think anyone contests that the death rate dropped after she left because that unit stopped taking such vulnerable babies, although my understanding is that it dropped after she left and before that point in any event. What the evidence showed was that deaths happened during the day time when she was on day shifts, changed to night times when she was on night shifts, and stopped when she was on holiday. Hell of a coincidence if she was innocent.

Door swipes, telephones, dodgy statistics, very bad science, and not a shred of forensic evidence.

DulciUke · 24/05/2024 21:27

The New Yorker is considered a very respectable magazine. Not a trashy magazine or tabloid. Doesn't mean the article wasn't biased, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Medical cases like this are usually incredibly hard to prove, which is why miscreants get away with it for years. There was a male nurse who lived an hour away from my area (U.S.) that is believed to have killed hundreds before he was caught.

Sunnyandsilly · 24/05/2024 21:28

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:20

No-one can 100% know whether a criminal is guilty unless they were there and saw the crime being committed. Unsurprisingly, criminals tend to commit their crimes out of the public eye and take quite a lot of trouble to cover their tracks. If we are going to require 100% proof of guilt, we might as well all become criminals, because they will be untouchable.

Exactly, it’s beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise no one would be found guilty. Letby is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:28

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 16:24

I’ve read and scanned the article quickly.

It is quite worrying really and why isn’t Letby being given the right to appeal?

Because her lawyers haven't demonstrated that there are arguable grounds for appeal.

It happens every day in the courts. No-one makes this sort of fuss about the countless occasions when common-or-garden burglars, gang members, rapists, muggers, abusers, robbers, fraudsters, dangerous drivers etc etc fail in attempts to apply for permission to appeal.

Higglings · 24/05/2024 21:29

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 15:41

Hope the bitch rots in hell.

Exactly!

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:39

bibop · 24/05/2024 17:18

No-one on this thread has said she must be innocent. I am saying there's a small chance she could be. I thought the New Yorker article was interesting. They read all the court transcripts. Did you?

Reading the transcripts gives you no idea of how the witnesses presented in person. Most materially, they do not contain the volumes of written evidence presented.

Alwaystired23 · 24/05/2024 21:39

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 24/05/2024 20:10

So if you’re a midwife then do you have any other opinions? I’m sure there was another nurse or midwife on another thread who thought she was guilty.

I'm a nurse, I have come across nurses who think she's guilty, and some not convinced.

StarsBeneathMyFeet · 24/05/2024 21:51

I actually know someone who trained with Beverly Allit. She said that although they never imagined she’d do what she did, she was known as being a strange character, behaved oddly. Whereas until suspicions were raised about timing, Lucy Letby was generally well regarded.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 21:54

FOJN · 24/05/2024 17:45

And? She'd been reliving the details for 4 years. If she'd cried she'd have been accused of faking it so I don't think her lack of emotion can be interpreted as a sign of guilt.

The thread is not about whether she is guilty or innocent it's about her being denied an appeal. Plenty of people have been found guilty and had convictions overturned on appeal. If the defence has evidence which suggests her conviction is unsafe then she should be allowed an appeal.

Such information as we have indicates that they aren't suggesting that they have evidence making the convictions unsafe; the reports say that the appeal grounds were based on arguments around applications which the trial judge refused.

They system requires convicted people to show initially simply that there are arguable appeal grounds. Letby hasn't managed to overcome that relatively low hurdle.

Arraminta · 24/05/2024 21:55

I followed the case closely and read most of the court transcripts. I believe she is guilty. I think she is a very, very ill woman and what is terrifying is that she could so successfully hide the sickness within her. I don't believe in the concept of evil, but I do believe there are people who only look human on the outside. Inside they are just an empty, screaming void that we will never be able to comprehend. They are an abomination and shouldn't be suffered to live.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 22:01

iamwhatiam23 · 24/05/2024 17:57

@x2boys i never said i did know better i simply said i was unsure! But having seen how our legal system operates up close and knowing that jury's most certainly don't see the " whole picture" but a picture with lots of facts left out ( by both the prosecutors and defence) and knowing first hand that jury's most definitely do and have got it wrong, i would err on the side of caution! Also having worked for the NHS and knowing the whole culture of it absolutely nothing would surprise me! However as i said i don't know enough facts to say either way!

But you don't know that "lots of facts' were left out - other than, obviously irrelevant facts. Letby was represented by extremely competent lawyers whose job, amongst other matters, was to make quite sure that all the facts that would exonerate her were presented and indeed highlighted to the jury. They were given free access to all the information the prosecution had. Are you really saying that her representatives didn't know their jobs, and didn't do their jobs? On what evidence?

pikkumyy77 · 24/05/2024 22:03

Yeah. I read the New Yorker article. I don’t think she did it either.

Newtrix · 24/05/2024 22:04

FlyingOverAllOceans · 24/05/2024 15:25

I feel this is wrong, everyone should have a right to appeal - however until Baby K case has a trial I can understand why they have said no at this time: If media reports that they have barred all future appeals are correct I feel that decision is wrong as there are so many cases where new techniques in analysing evidence have been introduced and convictions have been over turned.

It must be incredibly difficult for the families however and there does need to be a balance between a fair process, new evidence and techniques and them being not dragged through appeals time and time again.

She murdered babies, they didn't get a chance to appeal did they. Ffs.

HollyKnight · 24/05/2024 22:07

I'm a nurse. Several years ago I started working on a new ward. In that first week, SIX patients had seizures. This was not a neuro ward, it was another medical ward where you wouldn't expect non-epileptic patients to have seizures. I was on the ward for all six of those seizures. There were jokes about me being Beverly Allit because I was the only change to the ward and the only common denominator. But it was just one of those things. A cluster of unfortunate events. Pure coincidence.

If I hadn't experienced that myself, I would not have so many doubts about LL. But I did and I do. Clusters of deaths do happen when you work with very sick patients. It is not as unexpected or improbable as the court case made it sound like. But if you have it in your head that coincidences like this can't happen, you then look for a cause. If you want to put your "cause" in prison for the rest of her life, you better make sure she gets a fair trial.

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 22:14

Lilacdew · 24/05/2024 18:12

I agree. And several of the things I read about at the time of the trial, which seemed to indicate her guilt, are put into perspective in the NY article. She googled the parents of dead children - seems dodgy, but then you learn she googled everyone she encountered - that was just a habit of hers - less guilty. The diary pages seemed a massive indication of guilt, but by then she had endured years of accusations and stress - she might have been doubting herself by then. She was caught simply standing over a baby, doing nothing. But I have struggled to compose myself and work out how to function after doing 20 hour shifts, especially if the task in hand is really important, let alone potentially life saving or life-threatening.

The NY article shows a long term problem of chronic understaffing and extra shift work, of woefully under-experienced staff, even at consultant level, they weren't neonatal specialists and couldn't perform basic physical procedures like inserting tubes accurately when the babies were so small and delicate.

I think having read that article, that the press and the court presented very partial information which pointed to her. The full facts would have been far less conclusive. Nothing in her past suggested cruelty, indifference, anti-social behaviour.

I am not saying I'm sure she is innocent, but I don't think her trial offered a fair balance of evidence and this article isn't sensational - it's pretty thorough at showing an alternative reading of the facts.

When I first read all the reports about the NYT article I had the distinct impression that it had bombshell new stuff that no-one had thought of before and which hadn't been before the jury, and was interested to see what this would be. However, when I read it I was really quite underwhelmed, because this stuff just isn't new and was argued out in front of the jury. Letby herself gave evidence explaining things like the diary entries and her habit of googling people, and her lawyers also made these arguments. Likewise the facts about the staffing problems were spelt out.

So this is not new stuff that wasn't presented to the jury: it was all fully available to them. They still found, after a ten month trial, that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Delphiniumandlupins · 24/05/2024 22:14

Doesn't there need to be new evidence for an appeal?

MsCheeryble · 24/05/2024 22:18

Lilacbluebells · 24/05/2024 18:53

I don’t think even one person here is convinced of her innocence, some of us aren’t totally convinced of her guilt. They aren’t the same things at all.

But the jury, who are the ones who actually heard and saw the evidence, were totally convinced. Don't you think their view is likely to be more reliable than yours?

LadyHavelockVetinari · 24/05/2024 22:18

Sunnyandsilly · 24/05/2024 16:13

I read up extensively and respect the juries decision, for me it is indisputbie and anyone who tries ro support a child murderer is for me sickening,

This is a very silly thing to say. No one here is trying to "support a child murderer". People are not saying that they think she is guilty but they support her. They're saying they are not convinced that she is guilty.

As someone said upthread, it doesn't matter what we think because we're not on the jury. But surely we don't want to say that it's sickening to question whether a jury made the right decision.

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 22:18

So if the poor love is innocent then who do people think murdered those babies?

Who deliberately injected at least one of them with insulin?

I seriously cannot believe that a woman is found guilty of a crime which she clearly committed, and then people read some conspiracy bollocks article and suddenly their eyes have been opened and they think they know better after a snapshot read as opposed to a six months trial.

You do know don’t you that there are convincing articles about pretty much every crime that has ever been committed calling for charges to be dropped against some of the world’s most heinous criminals?

IAmThe1AndOnly · 24/05/2024 22:21

This is a very silly thing to say. No one here is trying to "support a child murderer". People are not saying that they think she is guilty but they support her. They're saying they are not convinced that she is guilty. Actually plenty of people on here are supporting a child murderer, by definition of the fact that so many believe, based on a completely biased article, that she isn’t a child murderer and that a dreadful miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.